Masaryk University of Brno

Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American

Studies
English Language and Literature

Kristna Onderkov

Sherlock Holmes vs. Hercule Poirot: The

Comparison Between A. C. Doyles and
A. Christies Great Detectives
Bachelors Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Lidia Kyzlinkov, CSc., M. Litt.

2005
0

I herewith declare that I have done this work

all by myself and made use of the quoted reference only.
..

I would like to thank to the supervisor of my Bachelors thesis

PhDr. Lidia Kyzlinkov, CSC., M. Litt. for her exceptional help,
flexibility and guidance of my work.

Contents
1. Introduction....4
2. The history of detective fiction..8
2. 1. Introduction....8
2. 2. The prehistory of detective fiction.............8
2. 3. E. A. Poe and his followers......10
2. 4. The development of the Great Detective..12
3. The comparison between Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot..19
3. 1. The origin of the Great Detectives...19
3. 2. The Great Detectives appearance21
3. 3. The Great Detectives manners....24
3. 4. The Great Detectives and their methods of investigation....31
3. 5. The Great Detectives and their side-kicks42
4. Conclusion....46
5. Works Cited......48
5. 1. Primary sources.....48
5. 2. Secondary sources.50

1. Introduction
One of the prejudices about detective stories is that they are so popular since they are of no
artistic value. However, as G. K. Chesterton puts it in his A Defence of Detective Stories, it is
not true [. . .] that the populace prefer bad literature to good, and accept detective stories because
they are bad literature (Chesterton). The question of the artistic value of any work is disputable as
art has no specific rules and definitions. Nevertheless, those who claim that popularity of a work is
not important should realize that a narrative lives solely if it has the readership; and the detective
genre has the widest range of readers, from ordinary workmen to distinguished scientists.
From the huge list of detective fiction authors two names stand out: those of A. C. Doyle
and Agatha Christie. Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle (1859-1930) initiated the period of an
exceptional spread and popularity of detective fiction. He was born in Edinburgh in Scotland in a
family of Roman Catholics. He was educated in Jesuit schools, and later he used his friends and
teachers from Stonyhurst College as inspiration for characters in his Holmes stories. While
studying medicine at Edinburgh University, he met Dr. Joseph Bell, one of his professors, whose
deductive skills served as a model for Doyles most famous detective, Sherlock Holmes. In 1884,
Doyle married Louise Hawkins. Unsuccessful as a doctor, Doyle directed his ambitions towards
literature but his first book was not accepted by any publishing house he turned to. He decided
therefore to create something exciting and original and started to write detective stories. His first
significant work was A Study in Scarlet which appeared in Beetons Christmas Annual for 1887
and featured the first appearance of Sherlock Holmes. The Sign of Four followed in 1889. It was
an enormous success, and Doyle began producing one story after another, published mostly in the
pages of the Strand Magazine. Sherlock Holmes and his companion Watson soon became the
worlds most famous fictional pair of detectives. However, the massive initial popularity had an
effect on Doyle, and his increasing hatred towards Holmes lead him to kill his character in the
4

story entitled The Final Problem, published in 1893. During the South African War (1899-1902)
Doyle served as a physician in a field hospital, where he wrote The Great Boer War in which he
defended the policy of his homeland. After the war, in 1902, Doyle returned to England and was
knighted. His financial difficulties ended in the resurrection of Holmes who appeared first in
Watsons memoirs in The Hound of the Baskerville (1902) and later personally, claiming that his
death had been simulated, in The Adventure of the Empty House (1904). Doyle never tried to
get rid of him again, and Holmes remained a part of his life until Doyles death.
Besides detective stories, Doyle wrote several sci-fi novels featuring Professor Challenger,
such as The Lost World (1912) and The Poison Belt (1913), historical novels, e.g. The White
Company (1891) and Micah Clarke (1888), and many other miscellaneous works.
Agatha Mary Clarissa Christie (1890-1976) was born in Torquay in England as the
daughter of Frederick Alvah Miller and Clarissa Miller. Christie was educated at home, where her
mother encouraged her to write from a very early age. At sixteen she was sent to school in Paris
where she studied singing and the piano. Her first marriage was to Colonel Archibald Christie, an
aviator in the Royal Flying Corps, and ended in a divorce fourteen years later. The couple had one
daughter, Rosalind. During the First World War Christie worked at a hospital and then a
pharmacy, a job that influenced considerably her literary work as many of the murders in her
books are carried out with poison. In 1930 she married a Roman Catholic, Sir Max Mallowan, a
British archaeologist, whose work included a lot of travels in which Christie participated and from
which she draw inspiration. In 1971 she was granted the title of Dame Commander of the British
Empire and five years later, at the age of 85, she died from natural causes in Wallingford in
England and was buried at St. Marys Churchyard in Cholsey.
Christies first novel, A Mysterious Affair at Styles, was published in 1920. This book
introduced her most famouse detective, Hercule Poirot, and his companion, Captain Hastings.
Other books followed and her career moved slowly up until it boomed in 1926 after the publication

of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, an original and much discussed story in which the murderer is
the narrator himself. The fact that Christie disappeared for eleven days seven months after its
publication also helped the sale of her books, as some critics claim. She wrote over one hundred
novels, short story collections and radio and theatre plays. Besides Hercule Poirot, her second best
known detective characters is Miss Jane Marple. There is a huge number of less well-known
investigators, such as Harley Quinn, Parker Pyne, Tommy and Tuppence, Ariadne Oliver, and
many others. Christie also wrote five romantic and psychological novels which were published
under the pseudonym of Mary Westmacott.
The prime concern of this thesis is to examine the characters of Sherlock Holmes and
Hercule Poirot. It employs a comparative approach; i.e. there are explored the similarities and
differences between the two Great Detectives. The first chapter is introductory and describes the
development of detective fiction from its prehistory to its Golden Age, focusing mainly on British,
eventually French authors. The second part of the first chapter deals with the development of the
figure of the Great Detective from its ancestors appearing in the eighteenth century crime novels to
Agatha Christies Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. This chapter is mainly based on Jan Cigneks
Umn detektivky, Pavel Gryms Sherlock Holmes a ti druz, and Julian Symons Bloody Murder. I
also used essays by Richard Alewyn, Michael Holquist, and Stephen Knight collected in the
volume Poetics of Murder, and Karel apeks Holmesida ili o detektivkch. For Christies and
Doyles biographies I mostly exploited electronic sources, which are listed in the Works Cited.
The second chapter focuses on the figures of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot. In each
part of this chapter, I try to examine one aspect of these characters: their entrance into the fictional
world, their physical appearance, their mental traits, their methods of investigation, and the figures
of their companions, Dr Watson and Captain Hasting. Each part of the chapter starts with Sherlock
Holmes and proceeds to Hercule Poirot. For the examination of Holmes I have primarily used
Doyles works collected in the volume The Complete Sherlock Holmes: a novel The Study in

Scarlet and short stories: The Scandal in Bohemia, The Red-Headed League, The Five
Orange Pips, The Musgrave Ritual, The Engineers Thumb, and The Final Problem. To
analyse Poirot, I have mainly used Christies novels The Mysterious Affair at Styles and Curtain,
and short stories collected in Poirot Investigates, namely The Tragedy at Marsdon Manor, The
Mystery of Hunters Lodge, The Adventure of the Cheap Flat, The Adventure of the Western
Star, The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb, and The Adventure of the Italian Nobleman.
The observations in this chapter are furthermore supported by quotations and thoughts from
secondary sources, such as the works by Cignek and Grym, Julian Symons The Great Detectives,
and many others, listed in the Works Cited.

2. The history of detective fiction

2. 1. Introduction

Considering the genre of detective fiction, one discovers that it is hardly more than a

century and a half old. The first acknowledged classical detective story appeared in 1841 in
Grahams Magazine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A, and the name of the story was The
Murders in the Rue Morgue. Its original form and theme earned its author, Edgar Allan Poe
(1809-1849), the privilege of being known all over the world as a creator and pioneer of detective
fiction. However, the story was not created in a literary vacuum and was rather a result of a
development which is as old as literature itself. Before exploring the classics of the genre, I will
therefore briefly mention their more or less famous predecessors.

2. 2. The prehistory of detective fiction

Karel apek, not only a critic but in particular a great admirer of detective stories, argues in

his brief essey on detective fiction Holmesida ili o detektivkch that the basis of a detective
story lies in the process of tracing and hunting the criminal and that it is this process and its
successful completion that brings the readers the greatest pleasure. As such, the roots of detective
fiction may be traced back to the very beginning of mankind since hunting instinct is presumably
the oldest of human instincts and hunting thus might have well been the very first topic of
primaeval mens conversation. The first Holmes could have been an exceptionally talented,
smart, and eccentric hunter who describes his method of pursuing and capturing the uncapturable
mammoth to his admiring and rather dull Watson when they meet at the days end in the tribes
cave.
According to apek, most critics have agreed on the fact that one of the most important
characteristics of a detective story lies in the crime it presents and therefore the prehistory of
8

detective fiction corresponds with the early history of crime fiction. Since crime is a very old
phenomenon and appears therefore in literature from time immemorial, some critics are ready to
see crime fiction in such ancient tales as Odysseus (Karel apek claims that Odysseus is one of the
oldest detective stories in the world), antique tragedies, the story of Cain in the Bible (who is
supposed to be the first murderer according to the Christian religion), History of Susanna from
the Apocrypha (where prophet Daniel proved Susannahs innocence after the process of a thorough
interrogation and could be therefore the first detective ever), and so on. Other critics, such as
Stephen Knight, begin with stories about criminals from the late sixteenth and from the
seventeenth and eighteenth century. Stephen Knight mentions Robert Greenes cony-catching
pamphlets, Richard Heads The English Rogue (1716), Daniel Defoes Moll Flanders (1722), and
in particular a collection of crime stories The Newgate Calendar (1773) as sources for the study of
the nature and ideology of crime fiction which had not had any detectives yet. He continues with
William Godwins The Adventures of Caleb Williams (1794) and Les Mmoires de Vidocq (18281829), which may be the first ones to introduce the modern figure of an intelligent detecting hero.
Knight, as well as Jan Cignek in his work Umn detektivky, does not fail to mention Charles
Dickens and his novels taking place in contemporary Londons underworld, whose influence on
the creation of a modern detective story was by no means inconsiderable.
Another stream which together with stories about criminals has flown into the river of
detective fiction could be pursued back into the late eighteenth century when the Gothic horror
story appeared. Since the motif of mystery is another basic characteristic of detective fiction, one
could even follow this stream back into the oldest times as mystery stories are to be found in every
ancient culture from Europe to Africa and Orient. Nevertheless, the end of the eighteenth century
saw the greatest boom of horror stories and contemporary literature was flooded with novels
situated in old castles in desolate mountains, around which at night the storm howls and the moon
sheds an uncertain light (Alewyn 75). The novels were often entitled Mysteries and between 1794

and 1850 over seventy similar novels appeared in England. In the middle of the nineteenth century,
when Gothic mysteries had already lost its power, Eugne Sue published The Mysteries of Paris
(1842-1843) which unleashed a new wave of mystery novels all over Europe discovering the
labyrinth of criminal conspiracies hidden under the husk of secure everyday life in the modern
metropolis, uniting thus the mystery novel with the criminal novel. Twenty-five years later Wilkie
Collins The Moonstone (1868) meant the beginning of the modern mystery and suspence novel.
Mysteries and their solutions appear widely as the theme and the scheme of the romantic
novel in Germany. Richard Alewyn, German philologist and literary critic, ascribes much
importance to the role German romantic novelists played in the development of detective fiction.
He goes as far as to claim that the first modern detective story was not created by Poe but almost
thirty years earlier by a German romantic E. T. A. Hoffmann in Das Frulein von Scuderi. We
find all together in this story the three elements that constitute the detective novel: first, the
murder, or the series of murders, at the beginning and its solution at the end; second, the innocent
suspect and the unsuspected criminal; and third, the detection, not by the police, but by an outsider,
an old maid and a poet; and then fourth, the extraordinarily frequent, though not obligatory,
element of the locked room (Alewyn 73). However, as Alewyn himself admits in the postscript to
his essay The Origin of the Detective Novel, his thesis has found more disagreement than
agreement. Although some critics, such as Jan Cignek in Umn detektivky, mention Hoffmann as
a source of inspiration for Poes romantic short stories, Poe has remained on his throne as the
founder of the detective genre.

2. 3. E. A. Poe and his followers

The metamorphosis of the old romantic story into a new detective genre had been

completed in Poes The Murders in the Rue Morgue. Poes detecting hero, a Frenchman Auguste
Dupin, has become an archetype for all subsequent detectives. He is a brilliantly smart amateur

10

who solves mysterious murders by means of pure logical reasoning - he examines facts and
deducts a solution. Between 1841 and 1845 Poe wrote three Dupin stories: The Murders in the
Rue Morgue (1841), The Mystery of Marie Rogett (1843), and The Purloined Letter (1844).
His stories noted a substantial success and were taken over by many American and European
authors, among which stands out mile Gaboriau (1832-1873) and his Inspector Lecoq. Gaboriau
wrote altogether twelve detective novels and had a substantial success; however, when Arthur
Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes, Gaboriaus international fame declined.
Sherlock Holmes was in many aspects inspired by Poes Dupin and Gaboriaus Lecoq. His
deductive skills considerably resemble those of Dupin; in The Adventure of the Cardboeard Box
he even deducts his companions thoughts following the well-known Dupins pattern. Doyle was
neither original nor very good at plots and moreover frequently careless about factual details (e.g.
the name of Holmess companions wife changed several times in the stories), surprisingly enough
he created the greatest of the detectives and influenced a huge number of writers all over the
world. Doyles most famous immediate followers are e.g. French journalist Gaston Leroux (18681927) and his detective-reporter Joseph Rouletabill or a French novelist Maurice Leblanc (18641941) and his likeable criminal-detective Arsen Lupin. Some novelists tried to create a counter
balance to the figure of Sherlock Holmes, such as G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) with his catholic
priest Father Brown and his companion Flambeau, both far from the general image of a great
detecting hero. In this way Holmes influenced also the creation of another Great Detective, Agatha
Christies Hercule Poirot.
Detective fiction reached its peak in the twenties and the thirties of the nineteenth century.
This period is generally known as The Golden Age of the detective story and has brought, besides
a number of brilliant detective novels, several attempts to classify the detective genre and
distinguish it thus from the crime and mystery story, police novel and thriller. An English
theologian and crime writer, Monsignor Ronald Knox (1888-1957) laid down in 1928 his Ten

11

Commandments of Detection trying to formulate the basic rules limiting a detective story.
However, these rigid rules never really worked in practice and served rather as a model from
which many variations and mutations were made. They applied mainly to stories written in the
Golden Age, became more and more violated and finally abandoned in the postwar period. Julian
Symon reproduces the rules in his study on the detective fiction, Bloody Murder, as follows:
1. The criminal must be mentioned early on.
2. The supernatural must be ruled out.
3. The detective must not commit the crime.
4. No unaccountable intuition of the detective must help him to find the right solution.
5. No accident or coincidence must help the detective.
6. Logical deduction must be stressed.
7. There must be no deep characterization or any flourish of style.
8. The puzzle must be solved.
9. The reader must be informed about the clues or discoveries.
10. No servant or a mysterious Oriental should be responsible for the crime.
These rules were accepted as a code of ethics by members of the Detection Club, founded
in 1928 by a group of British detective writers including e.g. Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers,
and G. K. Chesterton. In fact, most of them occasionally violated or at least evaded some of the
rules when they needed it (for example, in Agatha Christies Curtain Hercule Poirot himself
commits the murder). Many other critics tried to establish valid rules of detective fiction, such as
S. S. Van Dine with his Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories, none of them with a
considerable success. Detective fiction grew enormously during the twenties and the thirties and
suffered a lot of changes until it finally metamorphosed into various types of crime novel after
World War II.

12

Among a large number of British detective writers operating during the Golden Age stand
out e.g. Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers, Anthony Berkeley, Michael Innes, Nicholas Blake,
Margery Allingham, and Ngaio Marsh.

2. 4. The development of the Great Detective

The figure of the Great Detective represents the essence of the detective story. He is the

driving force of the novel, he gives movement to the rather static motif of crime and its
accompanying mystery. His character forms the nature of the whole story - its development, the
suspense it involves, and its final solution. The detective must be memorable; otherwise the story
loses all its attraction. He must be the great hero, must be a complete man and a common man and
yet an unusual man, must be the best man in the world and a good enough man for any world
(Danielsson 43). The face of the hero has changed many times throughout the history of detective
fiction; however, one thing remains - a strong and admirable personality which always finds a
solution to the riddle.
The ancestors of modern detectives appeared as soon as the late eighteenth century. In
William Godwins The Adventures of Caleb Williams, we are introduced to a detecting hero Caleb
Williams, who is not actually a detective yet but an intelligent lower-class youth working as a
secretary of the local squire, Mr. Falkland. After some tart arguments with his neighbour Tyrrel,
Mr. Falkland murders him in secret. Calebs curiosity makes him study Falkland and reveal his
crime; nevertheless, his discovery only brings him misery. He is pursued across Britain,
imprisoned, and, largely because of Falklands prestige, steadily discredited and humiliated. The
murderer is never punished.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century another detective emerged. It was in The
Memoirs of Vidocq, an alleged autobiography of Eugne Franois Vidocq, a criminal who later
became an inquiry agent in Sret, a detective branch of the French national police. His Memoirs

13

tell a series of rather brief encounters with criminals. Vidocq is presented as a supremely skillful
man who always outwits the most powerful and feared villains. His major methods are disguise,
patience and cunning. However, he is not an isolated hero as the later detectives are to be, since he
works for the police and is in intimate contact with the people of Paris. Although he is better than
an average policeman and he is far from being ordinary, he often disguises himself as one of the
Parisians and becomes one of them. As Stephen Knight, a famous British autor and literary critic,
puts it, He is a hero who operates for and through the people, not a hero distinguished in manner
and method by isolation and alienated intelligence (Knight 294). This is one of the differences
between him and classical detectives.
The predecessors of isolated and singular detectives can be found in romantic mystery
stories in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. They are men of an eccentric character,
useless for practical life to which they are strangers, outsiders who are, however, endowed with a
special sense to recognize wonders of our life. They are called artists, not because they practice
some art but because their eccentric characters and their extravagant life styles exclude them from
the society of ordinary men. They typically have no family, no profession, no residence, and no
possessions, and their relationship with society and state is full of conflicts. But they are the ones
who know how to read the clues and to interpret signs which remain invisible or incomprehensible
to normal men. For they are prepared for the reality of the unusual and immune against the
deception of the probable (Alewyn 77). Poes Dupin, Conan Doyles Sherlock Holmes, and even
Agatha Christies Hercule Poirot would all represent the same type of person in this sense.
According to Alewyn, who claims that the first detective story was written by a German
romantic novelist E. T. A. Hoffmann, the first modern detective appears in Hoffmanns Frulein
von Scuderi in 1818. The person in question is Mlle de Scuderi, a little old lady who is very clever
and courageous and whose warmheartedness, wisdom, and an infallible emotional certainty
represent her main weapons in unmasking the criminal. However, many critics argue that Mlle de
14

Scuderi does not proceed actively and methodically enough (Alewyn 78), and thus Poes
Auguste Dupin remains the first in the line of Great Detectives.
As I mentioned above, Auguste Dupin became an archetype for the whole next generation
of detectives. We can find in him all the basic characteristics which later became so schematic for
the figure of the Great Detective. First, he is an amateur. He does not work for the police and his
detecting abilities far exceed those of trained policemen, which makes him look on the whole
police institution with contempt and cooperate only reluctantly. Second, he is a very eccentric
person. He loves shadows and darkness, he enjoys walking alone in the streets of Paris at night and
he loves loneliness. He is virtually useless for practical life. Third, he has no family, no relatives,
no personal life, and almost no friends. Fourth, he does not develop throughout the story so that he
resembles more a machine than a human being. Fifth, he has an outstanding knowledge and a
brilliant brain which is able to solve every puzzle by means of pure logical reasoning. And sixth,
unravelling puzzles is the one and only reason to live for him. He does not seem to have any other
hobbies or interests but to exercise his muscular brain.
This model of a detective hero has been taken over, modified, remade, and changed
countless times during the last two centuries. Some of the detectives that appeared shortly after
Dupin, such as Gaboriaus Lecoq, have only a little in common with Dupin so that his influence is
hardly seen. Lecoq is a policeman, which, however, is no reason for him not to despise other
policemen and the police as such, he likes women and gambling, and he is obsessed with disguises.
Nevertheless, and here the connection with Dupin is quite clear, he has an admirable sense of logic
and uses the method of analytical deduction to find solutions to the riddles. However, in contrast
with Dupin, Lecoq sometimes makes mistakes and is therefore much more human. Conan Doyles
Sherlock Holmes could be seen as Dupins lineal descendant. Holmes, as well as Dupin, is an
amateur, an eccentric person obsessed with chemical experiments, playing the violin and taking
drugs, a loner lacking relatives or friends except for his companion Watson. His personal life is

15

reduced to minimum and shows no development, and his intelligence is far from ordinary. To a
high degree, Holmes is a pure mind, a computer disgorging data, processing and analyzing them,
and finally releasing a solution. He does not make mistakes. He likes disguise and is a master of it.
In short, he is a rather flat and not really human-like character; however, he has been loved by the
public since his very first appearance and his fame has spread all over the world far beyond the
fictional one; in other words, he became a myth and an institution at the same time. Hardly
anybody could avoid Holmesean influence.
A slightly different tradition was displayed by Gaston Lerouxs Joseph Rouletabille,
another detective solving his cases by means of pure deductive reasoning. Rouletabille is a young
journalist who, contrary to Dupin and Holmes, does not appear out of nowhere but has a family
and a rather controversial past. He is raised in a religious orphanage and later he finds out that his
father is an international criminal of great repute and many identities. Rouletabille in the end
manages to unmask his father and save his mother, a rich American heiress, from his fathers evil
designs. Rouletabille himself is a master of disguise and his method of investigation is in some
respect peculiar: as he himself claims, he does not put too much importance on physical clues left
by the criminals since he considers this type of method rather primitive. However, he does not
offer any alternative mode of detection. His adventures are often horrifying and improbable;
nevertheless, he became considerably famous and appeared not only in novels but also in various
comics, radio and television plays and films.
Every perfect hero deserves its counterpart or a caricature and the same happened even to
Sherlock Holmes. The first of them was born in Holmess homeland, England, in 1911, when an
English writer G. K. Chesterton published his collection of stories The Innocence of Father Brown.
Father Brown is a quiet, plain little priest who always appears at the place of crime rather
incidentally as an insignificant person, one of the passers-by, standing modestly aloof in his
logically perfect meditation to produce a solution and silently walk away. Father Browns analyses

16

depend, in large measure, on a kind of spiritual intuition which is the result of his deep knowledge
of human frailties. He observes external clues, too, but far more depends on his wide experience
with sin. The fact that he is much more concerned with the moral, or religious aspect of the
criminals and their needs than other detectives makes him stand out to some extent in the gallery of
Great Detectives.
Somewhere between a caricature and a tribute to Sherlock Holmes stands Agatha Christies
Hercule Poirot. He follows the Dupins model of an eccentric and brilliantly clever detective who
has no relatives, no friends except for his companion Hastings (based on the Holmes-Watson
model) and no personal life; he shows no development throughout the story and has hardly any
past. Although he is a retired policeman he has little in common with the local police, the methods
of which he considers senseless. But his own method of investigation differs from those of Dupin
and Sherlock Holmes. He is able to analyse the problem and deduct a solution, he observes clues
and examines facts, but he much more relies on his deep knowledge of human psychology, and his
investigations are largely based upon long and detailed interrogations. He belongs to the so-called
armchair detectives since he does not need to stand up from his chair to bring a solution to the
mysterious crime. As he himself claims, he only needs people to start talking and they will tell him
everything about themselves, even the things they cautiously try to hide.
His somewhat ridiculous appearance helps him at it. No one takes him really seriously
when they see a small elderly man with an egg-shaped head, funny moustache and incorrect
English. The contrast between his physical features and his outstanding brain is one of his most
important weapons. While Holmes is a master at disguise, Poirot does not need to, and perhaps
could not, disguise. In many aspects he is a caricature of Holmes: Holmes is obsessed with
chemistry, Poirot is keen on his moustache and hair and uses chemicals to keep them perfect;
Holmes loves to play the violin, Poirot loves to rearrange his wardrobe; Holmes experiments with

17

drugs, Poirot indulges himself in delicious food. Yet both of them have one thing in common a
passion to unravel mysteries.
As soon as the detective fiction became popular, it was inevitable that the woman detective
would appear. The most famous of all is undoubtedly Agatha Christies Miss Marple. She uses
essentially the same weapons as Hercule Poirot: an inconspicuous appearance covering
extraordinary brain powers. Looking as a common old spinster, in tweed and with a curiosity as
wide as the world, no one suspects to find a sharp logical mind under her sweet bonnet. Her
abilities come from a huge knowledge of human psychology, not the one learnt from erudite books
but the one life itself teaches. Every character and his/her inclination or attitude to crime has
already occurred in Miss Marples life and she solely finds analogies and deducts a solution.
Fashions in detectives have changed greatly during the last century. Still greater importance
has been put on the detectives character. He was given families, lovers, wives and children,
personal problems and habits so that he step by step became an ordinary human being. The
inspired, intuitive, brilliantly logical super-sleuth of the late nineteenth century has given place to
the conservative, plodding, hard working, and routine investigator of the official police. Detectives
of this kind appear e. g. in works of an Englishman Freeman Wills Croft (1879-1957) or
Americans Henry Wade (1914-2001) and Ed McBain (*1926), and many others. Romanticism and
its taste for extravagancy have retreated from the detective fiction as well as from our daily lives;
and there is no outstanding detecting hero in contemporary literature, although to remain within the
British tradition, one should not perhaps fail to mention two contemporary female detective story
writers, P. D. James (*1920) and Ruth Rendell (*1930), whose mostly humanized Great
Detectives, Adam Dalgliesh and Reginald Wexford respectively, are combinations of a classic
brilliant loner and contemporary social-minded professional.

18

3. The comparison between Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot

3. 1. The origin of the Great Detectives

In the beginning there was a strong ambition to succeed in literature as well as financial

problems that led Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to the creation of Sherlock Holmes. Doyles literary
ambitions were a heritage from his parents, in particular from his mother who was deeply
interested in literature and had a substantial influence on her son. Doyle loved historical and
adventurous novels and he produced his first story at the age of six. Later, during his studies, he
wrote several stories because he wished to earn some money; however, only a few of them were
published and Doyle abandoned writing for a while. He returned to it during his stay in Portsmouth
when his medical practice had proved to be unsuccessful. This is when Sherlock Holmes saw the
daylight for the first time.
The character of Sherlock Holmes was influenced by E. A. Poes C. Auguste Dupin, by
Eugne Francois Vidoq, and, in particular, by Doyles university teacher Joseph Bell. Bell was a
remarkable person a brilliant doctor, an amateur poet, a sportsman, and a bird-watcher. He
emphasized the importance of close observation in making a diagnosis and was able to deduce
occupation and recent activities of a stranger by observing him carefully a skill inherited by
Sherlock Holmes. Holmes also seems to take over Bells angular nose and chin and a great energy
flowing from his twinkling eyes and from the way he walked.
Sherlock Holmes appeared for the first time in A Study in Scarlet published in Beetons
Christmas Annual for 1887. The whole story is narrated by Dr. John H. Watson who is to become
famous as Holmess one and only friend and biographer. Watson has just returned from the war in
Afghanistan where he had served as an assistant surgeon. Being weak and emaciated after the war
wounds and an enteric fever, he comes back to England and is looking for a cheap accomodation.
Then he meets an old friend of his to whom he confides everything about his difficulties. This is
19

when we hear of Sherlock Holmes for the first time from Watsons friends speech. Thats a
strange thing, remarked my companion, you are the second man today that has used that
expression [comfortable rooms at a reasonable price] to me. And who was the first? I asked. A
fellow who is working at the chemical laboratory up at the hospital (Doyle 16). This is the first
description of Sherlock Holmes ever. Watson and his friend decide to visit Holmes in the hospital
and then we can hear Holmess first words which so pefectly define his personality and the whole
aim of his life: Ive found it! Ive found it! (Doyle 17).
It was while I was working in the dispensary that I first conceived the idea of writing a
detective story (261), says Agatha Christie in her An Autobiography. Literature was always very
important to her and she read detective stories already as a child. Together with her sister she
invented short detective stories and it was her sister, Madge, who challenged Christie to write a
real detective story when she grew up. During the First World War Christie worked in a hospital,
first as a nurse, later in the dispensary. This work consisted of slack and busy periods, and
sometimes she had nothing to occupy herself with, which enabled her to write. Her knowledge of
poisons also substantially helped her.
The essential source of Christies ideas about the figure of the Great Detective was
undoubtedly A. C. Doyle and his Sherlock Holmes; however, this influence somewhat worked in
the opposite way. I considered detectives. Not like Sherlock Holmes, of course: I must invent one
of my own, and he would also have a friend as a kind of butt or stooge (Christie 261). The
originality of the new detective was the most important thing for Christie. A colony of Belgian
refugees which was situated in Christies neighbourhood gave het the idea to invent a Belgian
detective. How about a refugee police officer? (Christie 263). The germ of Hercule Poirot had
been settled and could grow. His character was being formed.
Poirot entered the fictional world in The Mysterious Affair at Styles published in 1920. The
narrator of the story is, similarly as Doyles Watson, Poirots friend and admirer Captain Hastings.

20

He also comes home from the war, this time it is World War I, and Hastings is given a months
sick leave on account of some obscure wound. Having no near relations or friends, as well as
Watson, he runs across an old friend of his who invites him to spend his leave at his place, at
Styles. Hastings accepts his invitation and spends almost fifteen pages describing the place and its
dwellers before Hercule Poirot appears. In contrast with Watson and Holmes, Hastings and Poirot
already know each other and their encounter is full of warm emotions. Thus the first words spoken
by Poirot refer to his friend, Mon ami Hastings! he cried. It is indeed mon ami Hastings!
Poirot! I exclaimed (Christie 21).
Already the first appearance of the two detectives suggests how different they are. The
readers encounter Holmes in the hospital laboratory a place of scientific research, which forms
the basis of Holmess life. Nothing in his life is more important than science: examining, learning,
and discovering facts are activities he could not live without. The laboratory is his kingdom and
the whole world is a certain laboratory for him.
The kingdom of Hercule Poirot is a public place and that is where he appears for the first
time. He is just entering the post office when he runs across Hastings. A public place crowded with
people this is Poirots laboratory. He studies people; he is interested in their behaviour, reactions,
secrets, and sins. Moreover, he likes people, while Holmes is quite indifferent to them. Holmes
hardly notices Watsons arrival, Poirot clasps Hastings in his arms and kisses him.

3. 2. The Great Detectives appearance

None of them is an ordinary-looking common man. They cannot be. One of the stereotypes

about exceptional and outstanding people is that they also look exceptionally. There is no hero
resting in a body of an average height, average weight, dressed in an average suit of an indefinable
colour, possessing an average face without any distinctive features. Heroes have to be visible; they
have to radiate a certain charm which proves the strength of their minds; which does not mean that

21

they have to look handsome or attractive. On the contrary, some eccentricity in their appearance is
always welcome. Such is the general image of this kind of hero and both Doyle and Christie
obeyed it in their own ways.
Watson describes Holmes in A Study in Scarlet as a very extraordinary-looking man that
strikes the attention of even the most casual observers. In height he was rather over six feet, and
so excessively lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His eyes were sharp and piercing [. . .]
and his thin, hawk-like nose gave his whole expression an air of alertness and decision. His chin,
too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man of determination. His hands were
invariably blotted with ink and stained with chemicals, yet he was possessed of extraordinary
delicacy of touch [. . .] (Doyle 20). Some additional descriptions are given to readers also in
various short stories in which Watson here and there refers to single facts about Holmess
appearance: with his thin knees drawn up to his hawk-like nose [. . .] (Doyle: RHL, 184), gently
waving his long, thin fingers in time to the music [. . .] (Doyle: RHL, 185), I saw his tall, spare
figure [. . .] (Doyle: SB, 161). One can feel a deep esteem coming from each Watsons word and
this is the effect Holmes probably has, or should have, on the readers. The esteem and admiration
the reader feels are, however, somehow distant and alien, like a jewel placed in a casket; we can
examine it thoroughly but we cannot touch it. Holmes appears as a typical Englishman of his time
reserved and unapproachable. It would not be easy for the readers to try to identify with him, nor
could they probably find a comparable person in their neighbourhoods. He is a little queer [. . .]
(Doyle: SS, 16), says Watsons friend in A Study in Scarlet. His individuality is strengthened and
stressed by his physical appearance; his aristocratic and at the same time scolarly-like looks work
perfectly to convey the singularity of his character.
The image of Hercule Poirot is right the opposite of that of Holmess, which was, as I have
already mentioned, the authors intention. The very first description of Poirot is given to the
readers rather briefly. Poirot was an extraordinary-looking little man, says Hastings. He was

22

hardly more than five feet four inches, but carried himself with great dignity. His head was exactly
the shape of an egg, and he always perched it a little on one side. His moustache was very stiff and
military (Christie: MAS, 21). Not too much is said about his weight; however, in Curtain, the last
Poirots case, Hastings mentions that his once plump frame had fallen in (Christie: C, 13), and
therefore I presume that he was slightly plumpish. Unlike Holmes, Poirot cares a lot about the way
he looks, which only adds to the comical effect he has on the readers. He was arranging his
moustache with exquisite care, says Hastings when describing Poirots morning rituals. He was
carefully engaged in brushing his coat before putting it on [. . .] (Christie: MAS, 35). Poirots
clothes have to be always neat and clean, and not a single mote of dust is allowed to fall on them.
He is obsessed with perfection and does not hesitate to express his discontent with his companions
appearance: Excuse me, mon ami, you dressed in haste, and your tie is on one side. Permit me.
With a deft gesture, he rearranged it (Christie: MAS, 36). In The Adventure of the Egyptian
Tomb, Poirot and Hastings are forced to lead their investigations in the conditions of the harsh
African climate. The impossibility of being perfectly clean drives Poirot crazy:
And my boots, he [Poirot] wailed. Regard them, Hastings. My boots, of the neat
patent leather, usually so smart and shining. See, the sand is inside them, which is painful,
and outside them, which outrages the eyesight. Also the heat, it causes my moustaches to
become limp-but limp! (Christie: AET, 97)
Another thing which contributes to Poirots comicality is the way he speaks. Poirot is a
Belgian, his mother-tongue language is therefore French, and French accent in English is
undoubtedly very funny, although it cannot be wholly reproduced in written text. The devices
Christie uses to give Poirots English foreign odour are e. g. lack of verbs: So beautiful, so
beautiful, and yet, the poor family, plunged in sorrow, prostrated with grief (Christie: MAS, 36),
sentence structures typical of roman languages: The diamond of Miss Marvell, it has been
stolen (Christie: AWS, 25), a number of French expressions such as mon ami, en passant,

23

mon cher, and sacr, and others. The way Poirot speaks also make him seem rather an oldfashioned speciman.
Hes such a dear little man. But he is funny (Christie: MAS, 130), says Cynthia, one of
the characters in A Mysterious Affair at Styles. This is the image Poirot sets in the eyes of other
people. A foreigner, a quaint dandified little man (Christie: MAS, 21) who limps and waves
his hands when he talks (Christie: MAS, 80), and possesses a cherub-like face (Christie: MAS,
34), who would ever think that he was in his time one of the most celebrated members of the
Belgian police (Christie: MAS, 22)? Poirots appearance is his mask, it hides perfectly his
extraordinary brain and only his green eyes which, according to Hastings, shine like the cats in
excitement reveal some of his inner abilities. People tend to underestimate him and they become
careless in their speech and behaviour. Poirots appearance is more important for his work than
that of Holmes since it functions as one of his main weapons at investigation.

3. 3. The Great Detectives manners

In his book Sherlock Holmes & ti druz, Pavel Grym states that an ingenious detective is

hardly ever quite sane. This is true about both Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot. They both
have certain habits, hobbies, and traits of character which may seem rather weird comparing to
those of the ordinary people.
Holmes suffers from depressions. He says about himself, I get into the dumps at times,
and dont open my mouth for days on end (Doyle: SS, 19). He often turns to drugs or at least to
his pipe to appease the fury of his remarkable mind. He desperately needs to concentrate, and one
of the things that help him most is music. Holmes is a brilliant violin-player and composer. The
music he plays conveys the mental state he is in at the given moment: Sometimes the chords were
sonorous and melancholy. Occasionally they were fantastic and cheerful (Doyle: SS, 22). In The
Red-Headed League he spends the whole afternoon at the concert at St. Jamess Hall lost in his

24

thoughts. However, he is able to pass suddenly from the state of total immobility to a feverish
excitement.
In his singular character the dual nature alternately asserted itself, and his extreme
exactness and astuteness represented [. . .] the reaction against the poetic and contemplative
mood which occasionally predominated in him. The swing of his nature took him from
extreme languor to devouring energy; and [. . .] he was never so truly formidable as when,
for days on end, he had been lounging in his armchair amid his improvisations and his
black-letter editions. (Doyle: RHL, 185)
The duality of his character resembles that of a schizophrenic person. When he is immersed
in his thoughts, he appears distant and stone calm: Holmes sat silently, with his head thrown back
and his eyes closed, in an attitude which might seem listless (Doyle: NT, 455); however, when an
idea strikes him, a sudden rush of energy possesses his body: [he] sprang to his feet with a cry of
pleasure. Ive found it, Ive found it, he shouted to my companion, running towards us with a
test-tube in his hand (Doyle: SS, 17), and he literally shines with almost childish excitement.
Holmess behavior corresponds with the general conception of a typical scientist and has hardly
anything in common with the conception of a man whose main work is dealing with criminals. He
is interested neither in morality, nor in justice, and he sees crime only as a puzzle he has to solve.
Holmes is a scientist but he is a little queer in his ideas-an enthusiast in some branches of
science (Doyle: SS, 16), says Watsons friend Stamford. He appears to have a passion for
definite and exact knowledge (Doyle: SS, 17). However, his knowledge seems to be very
unsystematic as his companion later finds out. His ignorance was as remarkable as his
knowledge (Doyle: SS, 21) says Watson after he discovers that Holmes has never heard about the
Copernican Theory and the composition of the Solar System. Watsons growing curiosity about his
friends work leads him to compile a list of all the knowledge Holmes possesses:

25

Sherlock Holmeshis limits

1. Knowledge of Literature.Nil.
2.

Philosophy.Nil.

3.

Astronomy.Nil.

4.

Politics.Feeble.

5.

Botany.Variable.

Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical

gardening.
6. Knowledge of Geology.Practical, but limited.
Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me spashes
upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he
had received them.
7. Knowledge of Chemistry.Profound.
8.

Anatomy.Accurate, but unsystematic.

9.

Sensational Literature.Immense.

He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.

10. Plays the violin well.
11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.
12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law. (Doyle: SS, 21-2)
Watsons list is in some parts rather inaccurate and incomplete since Holmes often reveals
extraordinary knowledge in other fields, such as American history in The Five Orange Pips
where he talks about the Ku Klux Klan. Watson does not talk about Holmess relationship to
religion and one would suppose that a scientist does not have any, nevertheless, in The Naval
Treaty Holmes contemplates observing a rose and says, There is nothing in which deduction is
so necessary as in religion. [. . .] It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest

26

assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers (Doyle: NT, 455).
His words are very unlike him and it is highly possible that Holmes was only playing one of his
mischievous games in which he pretends that his mind is everywhere but with the case. Holmes
has a sense of drama and does not hesitate to enact a dramatic scene when he has the opportunity.
In The Naval Treaty, where his task is to find a stolen treaty, he serves the required document to
his suspicionless client on a covered plate at dinner after pretending that he had not found anything
new about the case. I never can resist a touch of dramatic (Doyle: NT, 466), says Holmes and
reveals his maliciousness.
Much like most of exceptionally talented people, Holmes is fairly conceited, and he looks
with contempt upon other detectives. According to him, Dupin was a very inferior fellow
(Doyle: SS, 24) and Lecoq was a miserable bungler (Doyle: SS, 25). Holmess extraordinary
powers of observation and logical reasoning accompanied by huge knowledge of virtually
everything (no matter what Watson says) are incomparable to anyone elses. Holmess pride,
eccentricity and total absorption in his work might be the reasons why he is rather antisocial: [he]
loathed every form of society with his whole Bohemian soul (Doyle: SB, 162), and why he has no
friends except Watson: Who could come tonight? Some friends of yours, perhaps? Except
yourself I have none, he [Holmes] answered (Doyle: FOP, 218). What is so special about Watson
that makes him such a good companion to Holmes? I know, my dear Watson, that you share my
love of all that is bizarre and outside the conventions and humdrum routine of everyday (Doyle:
RHL, 176), says Holmes and it is probably the only thing they have in common. However, their
coexistence in the Baker Street 221 B works without difficulties although Watson in The
Musgrave Ritual complains about Holmess untidiness, He was [. . .] in his personal habits one
of the most untidy men that ever drove a fellow-lodger to distraction (Doyle: MR, 386). Later,
when Watson gets married and moves to a flat of his own, he often comes to visit Holmes and their

27

friendship continues. It is the only relationship which shows the human side of the machine-like
scientist and at the same time it represents his only link to the outside world and to the readers.
Hercule Poirots nature is much more optimistic and human-like compared to that of
Holmes. He does not suffer from any sudden and causeless rushes of depression, although he may
appeare sad or angry at times, which may be attributed to his foreign temperament However, his
uncomfortable mental states always arise from the external conditions he is living in at the moment
and Poirot is able to overcome them without turning to any stimulants. In his last case, Curtain,
Poirot tells Hastings about his arrival to England and the beginning of his life there, and he admits
that those days were quite difficult for him. I was a refugee, wounded, exiled from home and
country, existing by charity in a foreign land (Christie: C, 17). However, his extraordinary
abilities soon earned respect and admiration, and his social status moved considerably upward, so
that in Curtain he even claims to be rich.
As well as Holmes, Poirot is fully immersed in his work. Nevertheless, unlike Holmes, he
has certain interests and preferences which have nothing to do with his profession. While Holmes
loves music since it helps him concentrate, Poirot loves delicious and exquisite food simply
because it stimulates his gustatory cells, and while an unsuccessful experiment causes depressions
to Holmes, Poirot is deeply frustrated by typical English meals: Those Brussels sprouts so
enormous, so hard, that the English like so much. [. . .] The vegetables that taste of water, water,
and again water. The complete absence of the salt and pepper in any dish (Christie: C, 15). The
question arises as to whether he himself can cook. He is hardly ever seen engaged in this type of
activity; nevertheless, in Mrs.Gintys Dead, he teaches a terrible cook Maureen Summerhayes how
to make an omelette.
I have already mentioned something about Poirots obsession with his appearance. He is
vain about his clothes, moustache and hair, which he dyes, and later he even condescends to wear a
wig and a false moustache. He is obsessed with cleanliness and tidiness, which he requires in

28

everything around him: John flung the match into an adjacent flower bed, a proceeding which
was too much for Poirots feelings. He retrieved it, and buried it neatly (Christie: MAS, 37).
When in The ABC Murders Hastings, full of excitement from the news of another murder, hurries
to catch the train and throws his clothes in his suitcase without any order, Poirot reproaches him
mildly for it and he himself packs his belongings with utmost care. A man of method is Poirots
supreme compliment. In The Case of the Missing Will Poirot has to examine the room of the
deceased man and he is enthusiastic about the order he finds: A man of method, this Mr. Marsh.
See how neatly the packets of papers are docketed; then the key to each drawer has its ivory
labelso has the key of the china cabinet on the wall; and see with what precision the china within
is arranged. It rejoices the heart (Christie: CMW, 186). Above all, Poirot loves symmetry. He
would be inexpressibly happy if the world around him composed only of geometrical shapes. In
The ABC Murders we learn that Poirot has moved in a modern flat in Whitehaven Mansions where
not a single curve offends his eye (Julian Symons wittily asks whether he also has a square bath).
In The Mysterious Affair at Styles Poirot admires the perfect symmetry of flower beds and in The
Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb he dislikes the arrangement of palm trees: Not even do they
plant them in rows! (Christie: AET, 98).
Although Poirot behaves like a querulous child when he has to suffer discomfort or even
disease, he is nonetheless than Holmes proud of himself and his little grey cells, as he likes to
call his brains. He does not withstand a comparison with any other man: Granted that your uncle
was a man of ability, his grey cells cannot have been of the quality of Hercule Poirots! (Christie:
CMW, 185), which leads Hastings to an observation that Poirots vanity is blatant! (Christie:
CMW, 185). However, even Poirot makes mistakes, which may invoke in him an unexpected blow
of self-criticism: Miserable animal that I am! I guessed nothing! I have behaved like an imbecile!
[. . .] Ah, triple pig! (Christie: MAS, 70), or a blow of somewhat deformed self-criticism: I tell
you, mon ami, it puzzles me. MeHercule Poirot! (Christie: MAS, 97). Nevertheless, his self-

29

praising words always bear such a comic that sometimes it seems as though it was Poirots own
intention. His sense of humour becomes evident e.g. in The Adventure of the Western Star:
And what do you think of Dr. Brnard, Hastings? inquired Poirot, as we proceeded
on our way to the Manor.
Rather an old ass.
Exactly. Your judgments of character are always profound, my friend. (Christie:
AWS, 35)
Poirots sweet tooth, vanity, neatness and love for symmetry, his hypochondria, conceit,
and finally his sense of humour all together give his character the irresistable comic that serves
him so well at his investigations. These also represent typical human inclinations, and therefore
suggest that Poirot, unlike Holmes, is not only a detective, but also a man, and that his emotions do
not always concern his work exclusively. Even though he has hardly any private life and never gets
married or at least has a date, it is not so extraordinary with respect to his advanced age, and he is
much more sympathetic than Holmes. Murders do not represent for him only an occasion to solve
puzzles: he feels a sorrow for the victims when they deserve it. He is deeply touched by the death
at Styles: Tears came into his eyes. In all this, you see, I think of that poor Mrs Inglethorp who is
dead (Christie: MAS, 79), and in The ABC Murders he even neglects his moustache knowing
that someone is going to die and he cannot prevent it. Eventually, Poirot is a human being since he
grows old in the stories and even dies, while Holmes does not undergo almost any external
changes and his death is only simulated.
Poirot does not have a scientific mind and not too much is known about his specific
knowledge of any kind. In The Adventure of the Cheap Flat he reveals some awareness of how
the cat was worshipped in ancient Egypt and in The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb he proves
rather wide knowledge of black and white magic. However, he evidently knows a lot about human
psychology, although it is not quite clear whether he consulted any psychological books or he draw

30

on his life experience. Nevertheless, he is an expert on human behaviour and he can see through
people. His brain is remarkable, in particular for its ability to connect apparently unrelated facts
and work out a theory of how the event happened. His process of reasoning is much the same as
Holmess: when his little grey cells are working, he remains stock-still: For about ten minutes
he [Poirot] sat in dead silence, perfectly still, except for several expressive motions of his
eyebrows (Christie: MAS, 78) but when a little idea, as he calls it, suddenly strikes him, he
jumps in excitement and rushes to find out whether he is right without giving any explanation:
Suddenly, as we were just moving out of Taunton, Poirot uttered a piercing squeal. Vite,
Hastings! Awake and jump! But jump I say! (Christie: CMW, 190).

3. 4. The Great Detectives and their methods of investigation

I am a consulting detective (Doyle: SS, 24), says Holmes when describing his work to

Watson in A Study in Scarlet. To be a consulting detective according to him means to consider the
facts given to him by his clients, which may be government or private detectives as well as
ordinary people, and draw a conclusion on the spot. But do you mean to say, marvels Watson,
that without leaving your room you can unravel some knot which other men can make nothing
of, although they have seen every detail for themselves? (Doyle: SS, 24). Holmes agrees and
adds that sometimes he has to conduct some additional investigation on his own.
What secret lies behind Holmess ability to find out what others cannot? Holmes himself
describes it as the Science of Deduction and Analysis (Doyle: SS, 23) and claims that as far as
he knows he is its only connoisseur in the world. That quite logically suggests that the Science of
Deduction and Analysis is his own invention for he never mentions any predecessors in this field.
Nor does he mention any scholarly publications on the subject except for his own article entitled
The Book of Life published in a magazine the name of which remains unknown to the readers.
From a drop of water, declares Holmes in the article, a logician could infer the possibility of

31

an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other (Doyle: SS, 23).
What ineffable twaddle! reacts Watson. I never read such rubbish in my life! (Doyle: SS,
23).Yet there is nothing as extraordinary and innovative about the method which is complex and
plain at the same time. The whole Science simply consists of a thorough observation of the given
facts (eventually searching for some additional ones) and their logical interpretation, something we
do every day. Holmess inferences [. . .] are extraordinary in degree but not in kind (Stowe 367),
says William W. Stowe in From Semiotics to Hermeneutics: Modes of Detection in Doyle and
Chandler. He compares Holmess method to a practical semiotics: His goal is to consider data of
all kinds as potential signifiers and to link them, however disparate and incoherent they seem, to a
coherent set of signifieds, that is, to turn them into signs of the hidden order behind the manifest
confusion, of the solution to the mystery, of the truth (Stowe 367-8).
Holmes often demonstrates his method on the client who comes to ask him for help by
deducing facts about their personalities and recent activities from their appearance. Thus in The
Red-Headed League he immediately knows that his client has done manual labour since his right
hand is larger than his left, that he is a Freemason since he uses an arc-and-compass breastpin, that
he has done a considerable amount of writing lately since his right cuff is very shiny and his left
one has a smooth patch near the elbow where he rests it upon the desk, and that he has been in
China since the tattoo on his right wrist is made in a technique which is exclusively Chinese
(Holmes modestly adds that he has made some study of tattoo marks lately), and moreover, he
wears a Chinese coin hung on his watch chain. Holmes also finds that his client takes snuff;
however, Doyle fails to make him explain his inference, although his client asks him about it (I
have made some investigations myself and found out that who takes snuff soils their clothes and
this could be the sign Holmes used. Watson himself mentions that the coat the man wears is not
particularly clean). In The Five Orange Pips Holmes discovers that his client has come up from
the south-west on account of the distinctive mixture of clay and chalk he sees upon his toe caps.

32

All these deductions may seem quite simple; nevertheless, they require a substantive talent for
observation and a huge amount of accurate knowledge.
Holmess method could be presented in several successive stages: collection of data,
classification of the data and selection of the useful ones, decodification of the data, i.e. uncovering
their logical meaning and coherence; integration of the data into a compact picture, and drawing a
final conclusion. Let us examine how this method applies to Holmess detective work.
Holmes is considerably lucky about his clients: they are all excellent observers. They rarely
fail to give him enough information about the case and, moreover, they are also very good
narrators. Holmes is only here and there forced to ask an additional question; his clients usually
know perfectly what he needs to hear. Thus Doyles stories often contain long monologues
sporadically interrupted by one- or two-sentence questions. In his short stories, these monologues
often form most of the narrative and Holmes is generally able to bring solution immediately after
hearing them out. However, on account of his love for drama, he never does it.
The man who asks Holmes for help in The Red-Headed League, Mr. Jabez Wilson, a
pawnbroker, comes with a story of a fairly unusual kind: his assistant brings him an advertisement
in which the so called Red-headed League is looking for a new member, a red-head (which Mr.
Wilson is), offering a purely nominal service for a good salary. Wilson is accepted and when the
League is suddenly dissolved a few weeks later, he does not wish to lose such a good place without
struggle and thus he comes to Holmes for advice.
The immediacy of Wilsons accepting to the League, a good salary for a useless work, and
the order that Mr. Wilson must not leave his office during his working hours no matter what
happens are the clues that serve Holmes to deduce that the object of the Red-headed League was to
keep Wilson out of the place of his business. The fact that Wilsons assistant started to work for
him shortly before the event and did so for half a wage brings him to the conclusion that he is
somehow involved in the case. In Wilsons description of the assistant Holmes recognizes a

33

notorious criminal John Clay and when Wilson tells him that his assistant spends a lot of time in
the cellar, Holmes suspects everything. He visits Wilsons shop finding some facts that confirm the
accuracy of his deduction, such as worn knees of the assistant suggesting a long hours of
burrowing. When he sees a bank situated directly round the corner, he realizes that criminals are
going to break into it through a tunnel. Holmes knows that they need as much time as possible for
their escape, for which Saturday could suit them best. He calls the Scotland Yard, tells Watson to
take his gun and waits for the thieves in the bank. The thieves are arrested, Holmess theory proves
to be right, and the only thing left is to explain Watson how he discovered this all. You reasoned
it out beautifully (Doyle: RHL, 190), marvels Watson
Not always does Holmes need to find out the significance of so many clues. In The
Adventure of the Engineers Thumb Holmess client, Mr. Victor Hatherley, tells a story which is
quite clear even to Watson and the readers, and the only problem is to find the house in which the
criminals dwell. Hatherley, who has visited the place, claims that the carriage which took him from
the station to the house covered a journey that took at least an hour. While Hatherley, as well as
Watson and the police, logically deduce that such a journey must be about twelve miles long,
Holmes observes one intangible fact: the horse before the carriage that waited for Hatherley at the
station was fresh and glossy. Therefore he could not have run twelve miles to the station. Thus the
house must be somewhere near the station and the carriage with Hatherley on board was only
driving around for an hour. Holmess accurate observation and his logical reasonin again help to
solve the puzzle.
Holmes is very confident in his conclusions and he is never mistaken. This is one of the
reasons why his stories often result rather implausible and schematic.There is always enough
evidence pointing at the conclusion, sometimes the evidence appears almost miraculously. In The
Musgrave Ritual he needs to know the exact height of an elm that no longer exists, and it is a
lucky coincidence that his companion knows it since his old tutor exercised him in trigonometry by

34

making him measure all the trees growing around. Another fact contributing to the flatness of
Holmess methods is the complete lack of ambiguity, and there is always only one interpretation
offered. For example, in A Scandal in Bohemia Holmes deduces that Watson has been getting
himself very wet lately, and that he has a most clumsy and careless servant girl (Doyle: SB,
162). When Watson asks how he knows that, Holmes answers,
It is simplicity itself. [. . .]My eyes tell me that on the inside of your left shoe, just
where the firelight strikes it, the leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously
they have been caused by someone who has very carelessly scraped round the edges of the
sole in order to remove crusted mud from it. Hence, you see, my double deduction that you
had been out in vile weather, and that you had a particularly malignant boot-slitting
specimen of the London slavey. (Doyle: SB, 162)
In this case Holmes claims that:
1. If the leather of a shoe is scored by cuts, someone must have scraped them in order to
remove mud from it.
2. If someone removes mud from a shoe so that he cuts its leather, he must be a very
careless and clumsy person.
3. The only one who cleans the shoes of a nineteenth-century doctor is his servant girl.
4 If someone had mud on his shoes, he must have been out in the vile weather lately and
get wet.
Each fact has in Holmess interpretation only one solution; however, if we examine the
facts more closely, we find that:
1. 1. If the leather of a shoe is scored by cuts, it must not have been necessarily mud
someone was trying to remove.
1. 2. If the leather of a shoe is scored by cuts, someone could have scraped it in order to
damage it.

35

2. If someone removes mud from a shoe so that he cuts its leather, his clumsiness could
have been only momentarily.
3. The servant girl may have fallen ill and the doctors shoes could have been scraped by
anyone.
4. 1. If someone had mud on his shoes, he could have been walking in the streets after it
was raining and therefore never get wet.
4. 2. If someone had mud on his shoes, it need not have been placed there lately.
Holmess method does not take too much account of human psychology, although Holmes
claims that he tries to put himself in other mens place. I try to imagine how I should myself
have proceeded under the same circumstances (Doyle: MR, 395). Nor does it allow for false
clues unless there are clues suggesting the false ones. In short, his Science is applicable exclusively
in a simplified fictional world and remains therefore a mere theory.
Hercule Poirots modes of detection are diametrically different from Holmess. While
Holmess method has an exact name and theoretical grounds, it is doubtful whether Poirot has any
definite method at all. He is not a man of huge knowledge and science, and he relies above all on
his brilliant intelligence: These little grey cells. It is up to them [. . .] (Christie: MAS, 145), and
on his well-developed instincts: Instinct is a marvelous thing. [. . .] It can neither be explained,
nor ignored (Christie: MAS, 119). Poirot does not occupy himself too much with a thorough
examination of physical clues since he knows very well that they may be misleading. Of course he
has to take them into account; nevertheless, he is more cautious with their interpretation. His
deductions are mainly based on his excellent knowledge of human psychology: he always
examines the personalities of the people involved in the case, and their mutual relationships. He
has a talent for discerning real emotions from the pretended ones and he instinctively feels evil in
human nature. His intuition is very strong, which is the result of his longtime work with criminals.

36

The main part of Poirots investigations consists of the interrogation of the suspects with
whom he plays his cats-and-mice game: he employs his comic appearance and manifests simplicity
to make them less circumspect about what they say, and then he suddenly attacks them with a
tricky question while they are unaware of it. Thus he gains the necessary information from which
he is able to reconstruct the crime.
The method of Poirots interrogation is brought to perfection in The Tragedy at Marsdon
Manor. In this case, Poirot is asked by an insurance company to investigate the death of a certain
Mr. Maltraves who insured his life shortly before he died. Poirot, accompanied by Hastings,
arrives at Marsdon Leigh and, as it is the usual procedure of his investigations, he begins by
consulting the doctor who examined the body. He learns the evidence shows that the death was
caused by a haemorrhage from a gastric ulcer and there are absolutely no doubts about the fact.
Another stage of his investigation also recurs in most of the stories: he examines the place of
murder. Poirot exchanges a few words with the bereaved widow, who is stereotypically the first
suspected person, especially if she is as beautiful as Mrs. Maltraves; he explores the rook rifle
which the deceased had on him at the moment of his death, and, finding nothing unusual or
suspicious, he decides to leave: Back to London, my friend, there appears to be no mouse in this
mouse-hole. And yet (Christie: TMM, 37), that is the moment when his intuition starts to
work. Something makes him hesitate as they walk away from the house, when suddenly they meet
a man heading in the direction of the manor. It is a pure intuition that suggests Poirot to follow the
man, who later shows as the main witness in the case. Poirot observes the shocked expression in
Mrs. Maltravess face when she sees the man and he realizes that his intuition was right. The man
is introduced to him as Captain Black and Poirot gives him several questions about his relationship
to the family. Captain Blacks answers appear quite innocent; however, Poirot decides to verify his
words by a little experiment. What follows is an example of a perfect interrogative method based
on Poirots knowledge of human subconscious:

37

You see, it is like this, I give you a word, you answer with another, and so on. Any
word, the first one you think of. Shall we begin?
All right, said Black slowly, but he looked uneasy.
[. . .] Day,
There was a moments pause, and then Black replied:
Night.
As Poirot proceeded, his answers came quicker.
Name, said Poirot.
Place.
Bernard.
Shaw.
Tuesday.
Dinner.
Journey.
Ship.
Country.
Uganda.
Story.
Lions.
Rook Rifle.
Farm.
Shot.
Suicide.
Elephant.
Tusks.

38

Money.
Lawyers. (Christie: TMM, 40-1)
A fairly brief dialog gives Poirot the main clue to the information he needs to reveal the
murderer. When Hastings asks in amazement about the purpose of these, in his opinion
meaningless words, Poirot explains:
To begin with, Black answered well within the normal time limit, with no pauses,
so we can take it that he himself has no guilty knowledge to conceal. Day to Night and
Place to Name are normal associations. I began work with Bernard, which might have
suggested the local doctor had he come across him at all. Evidently he had not. After our
recent conversation, he gave Dinner to my Tuesday, but Journey and Country were
answered by Ship and Uganda, showing clearly that it was his journey abroad that was
important to him and not the one which brought him down here. Story recalls to him one of
the Lion stories he told at dinner. I proceeded to Rook Rifle and he answered with the
totally unexpected word Farm. When I say Shot, he answers at once Suicide. The
association seems clear. A man he knows committed suicide with a rook rifle on a farm
somewhere. (Christie: TMM, 41-2)
Poirot then recalls Captain Black who tells him about a very unusual suicide his friend
committed, which is clearly identical with the death of Mr. Maltraves. As Poirot has seen the shock
in Mrs. Malgravess face when Captain Black appeared, he knows that Mr. Maltraves did not
commit suicide but was murdered by his wife. The only thing which remains for him to do is to
prove her guilty, which he achieves by playing a little drama with local performers in which an
illusory spirit of Mr. Malgraves returns to haunt his wife. In a rush of terror the woman confesses.
This is another example of Poirots ability to use his knowledge of psychology to make people tell
him about their crimes.

39

Poirot always considers the two most important things about every murder: the motive and
opportunity. As an expert on human nature he knows very well that the motive hardly ever
concerns something else than money, jealousy or vengeance, and that money is more probable that
the other two. Thus the first question he poses is: who benefits from the victims death? The
second question results from the first one: did the suspected person have an opportunity to murder?
The Tragedy at Marsdon Manor is a typical example of a murder for money. A rather
stereotyped case in which someone assassinates their relatives in order to inherit their assets also
appears in The Mystery of Hunters Lodge. It is also the case in which Poirot proves best that he
is an arm-chair detective, i.e. that he does not need to stand up from his arm-chair to bring the
solution to a crime. In Hunters Lodge Poirot falls ill and charges Hastings with investigations of
a murder. The victim is a Mr. Harrington Pace who was found shot dead in the locked gun-room in
his house. Hastings hurries to Derbyshire, to the place of murder, where he meets Inspector Japp
and both of them consequently prove their incapability. There are four suspects in the case: Paces
nephew Zoe Havering, her husband, their woman housekeeper, and a mysterious stranger with a
black beard and an American accent, whom the two women claim to have seen in the house shortly
before Paces death. The murder weapon is Paces revolver later found in London, far away from
the house. Hastings and Japp quite rightly deduce that those who benefit from the victims death
are Mr. and Mrs. Havering. However, both of them have strong alibis: Mr. Havering was in
London at the time of the murder and Zoe was talking with her housekeeper. This fact seems
insoluble until Poirot asks in a telegram about Zoes and the housekeepers clothes and later orders
to arrest the housekeeper. However, the housekeeper has disappeared in the meantime and Japp
and Hastings decide that she is in some connection with the black-bearded man who undoubtedly
is the murderer. The woman is searched for by the police and Hastings, a little disappointed, comes
back to London where his friend Poirot, comfortably seated in his chair, unravels the whole
mystery.

40

It was again Poirots knowledge of human nature which helped him to draw the right
conclusion. He claims that: A man who has committed murder with a revolver which he found
on the spot would fling it away at once, he would not carry it up to London with him (Christie,
MHL, 78). Therefore he deduces that the criminals only wished to remove the interest of the police
away from Derbyshire, and thus it is clear that the murderer is still there, in the house.
Furthermore, Poirot knows that while Mr. Haverings alibi is cast-iron since too many people saw
him in London, the only one who supports Zoe is her own housekeeper. He knows that nobody
notices the housekeeper in particular and finally finds out that Zoe was an actress before the
marriage. Since no one ever saw Zoe and her housekeeper together at the same time, Poirot
deduces that no housekeeper exists, and it was Zoe who murdered her uncle.
Like Holmes, Poirot, too, has to rely on physical clues sometimes. In The Adventure of
the Italian Nobleman he deals with a murder of Count Foscatini, an Italian who was killed in his
own flat and shortly before his death made a phone call to a friend of Poirots, Dr. Hawker. When
Poirot and Hastings arrive at the spot, they find out that the man was hit on his head with a marble
statue. The whole event occurred in the dining room where the table with the remains of a meal
suggests that Foscatini had three visitors for dinner, which is confirmed by Graves, his butler.
However, Poirot carefully observes the place of murder and finds out several important facts:
1. The window-curtain is not drawn.
2. The hands of the broken clock found in the room stopped at 8.47
3. The coffee in all the three cups is very black
4. All the plates are dirty and empty except for a small amount of rice souffl left on one of
them.
These are the clues which lead Poirot to the conclusion that no dinner party took place in
the flat that evening. He claims that:

41

1. If there really was a dinner party, the window-curtain would be drawn since the light
fails at 8.30.
2. Since coffee stains teeth and Foscatinis teeth are snow-white, he could not be a coffee
drinker and the three cups were arranged in order to confuse the investigators.
3. The murderer is Graves who provided the evidence of three finished dishes on the table
suggesting that three people were eating there. It was he who ate all the dishes except for the rice
souffl which was too much for him. No one else has seen the men coming into Foscatinis flat and
the whole story was made up by him.
Poirots deductions are sometimes as doubtful as Holmess. However, Poirot himself
admits that he is not always wholly confident about his inferences and he occasionally makes
mistakes. In The Case of the Missing Will he follows false clues almost until the very end and
only then he realizes that his deductions were wrong. Despite Poirots methods being frequently
too smooth, they are substantially more credible that those of Holmes.

3. 5. The Great Detectives and their side-kicks

Were it not for Watson and Hastings, no one would have ever learnt about the great deeds

of the two detectives. They are their mouths and ears; their presence in the story is vital since they
form the important connection between the detectives and the readers.
Both Watson and Hastings function as intensifiers of the contrast between the detectives
ingenuity and the average intelligence of a common man. They gained a reputation of being rather
slow-witted and dull; nevertheless, this notion is not wholly justified. Watson is a Doctor of
Medicine, a well-read and highly educated man, and his intelligence is certainly beyond average,
which is precisely the fact that makes Holmess mental virtuosity that much more amazing. On the
other hand, Captain Hastings often shows that his wits are slightly below of those of an average
reader. While Poirot is hardly ever wrong, Hastings is wrong all the time, even when he claims: I

42

have a certain talent for deduction (Christie: MAS, 30). In this respect Watson and Hasting
function also as model readers: their chains of thoughts are those on which the effect of the
narrative results in the most dramatic way.
It has become a stereotype that Holmes and Poirot often tease their companions; it is one of
the main sources of humour in the stories. The phrase Elementary, my dear Watson is known all
over the world. (However, it does not appear in any of the sixty Holmes stories written by Doyle. It
does appear at the very end of the 1929 film, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, the first Sherlock
Holmes sound film, and may owe its familiarity to its use in Edith Meisers scripts for The New
Adventures of Sherlock Holmes radio series.) Even Hastings alludes at it in The Adventure of the
Cheap Flat when he explains his deductions, which are naturally wrong: Obvious, my dear
Watson, I quoted lightly (Christie: ACP, 50). While the object of Holmess teasing mostly
represents Watsons intelligence, Poirot likes to keep a sharp eye on Hastings soft spot for
beautiful women: Did she impress you as being a truthful woman, Hastings? She was a
delightful creature! videmment! Since she renders you incapable of replying to my question
(Christie: ACF, 52). Nevertheless, another substantial source of humour is the Great Detectives
themselves as seen through the eyes of their friends. In The Musgrave Ritual Watson ironically
comments on his flat-mates untidiness,
I have always held, too, that pistol practice should be distinctly an open-air
pasttime; and when Holmes, in one of his queer humours, would sit in an armchair with his
hair-trigger and a hundred Boxer cartridges and proceed to adorn the opposite wall with a
patriotic V. R. done in bullet-pocks, I felt strongly that neither the atmosphere nor the
appearance of our room was improved by it. (Doyle: MR, 386)
Similarly in Curtain Hastings makes fun of Poirots querulousness:
The vegetables that taste of water, water, and again water. The complete absence of
the salt and pepper in any dish He paused expressively.

43

It sounds terrible, I said.

I do not complain, said Poirot, and proceeded to do so. (Christie: C, 15).
However, the fact that they mutually tease each other only confirms the warmness of their
relationships.
The question as to which of the Great Detectives is closer to their assistants is difficult to
answer. Both Holmes and Poirot share their flats with them for some time, and both Watson and
Hastings visit their friends when this co-existence comes to an end. Holmes, as well as Poirot,
occassionally asks his companion to help him arrest the criminals, and both Watson and Hastings
function as their bodyguards from time to time. In The Red-Headed League Holmes asks
Watson to take his gun and follow him to the place of crime, the same happens between Poirot and
Hastings in The Adventure of the Cheap Flat. Both detectives at least once let their companions
work instead of them: Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles, Poirot in The Mystery of
Hunters Lodge. However, although Holmes adresses Watson my dear friend, which is
analogical to Poirots mon ami, Hastings, the friendship between Poirot and Hastings may seem
warmer if we do not consider the possibility that Holmes could be rather shy in manifesting his
feelings. Thus while in The Mysterious Affair at Styles Poirot clasps his friend in his arms and
kisses him warmly, when Holmes literally rises from the dead and appears before delighted
Watson who is crying in excitement, he calms down his companion and lights a cigarette, amused
at the success of the dramatic effect he provoked. Moreover, in The Scandal in Bohemia Watson
himself admits that when he came to visit Holmes, His manner was not effusive. It seldom was,
however, he knows that he was glad [. . .] to see me (Doyle: SB, 162).
Nevertheless, that both Watson and Hastings like their eccentric friends very much is
clearly seen in the way they express their sorrows when Holmes ostensibly and Poirot truly die. It
is with a heavy heart that I take up my pen to write these last words [. . .] (Doyle: FP, 469), says
Watson introducing The Final Problem. I dont want to write about it at all (Christie: C, 239),

44

claims Hastings in Curtain, yet later he adds, I must put it down. It must be said (Christie: C,
242). This is the prime purpose of Watson and Hastings existence.

45

4. Conclusion
When in 1893 A. C. Doyle published his story The Final Problem in which Sherlock
Holmes dies he may not have foreseen the rash of protests that would follow. Thousands of British
people were in tears. Mounds of funeral wreaths were being placed in front of the printing-office
which had until recently been producing Doyles stories, and a Sherlock Holmes memorial stone
was built in the London cemetery. Doyles postbox was flooded with hundreds of letters full of
protests, demands, reproaches, and menaces. Holmess fans rioted in the streets of London, and the
Queen herself insisted that A. C. Doyle bring him back.
Similarly, when Agatha Christie wished to let her Great Detective, Hercule Poirot, die, she
was not allowed to do so. Poirots last case, Curtain, written in the 1940s, was therefore kept at her
publishers (Fontana, Collins) who persuaded her to postpone the novel to be released when the
time was appropriate. This happened in 1975, a year before her death.
The immense popularity of both Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot was a natural
reaction on the contemporary need for a hero. The considerable growth of criminality, which the
inadequate police force was unable to suppress, the horrors of the First World War, and the
insecurity of the post-war era, this all stimulated the desire for a character of extraordinary
qualities; someone who brings order to the every day chaos.
. The aim of this thesis was to compare several aspects of Holmess and Poirots
personalities: their physical appearance, their mental traits, their methods of investigation, and
their relationships with their companions, John H. Watson and Captain Arthur Hastings. Hardly
any similarities could be found between Holmess and Poirots physical and mental characteristics.
Holmess image is that of an ardent scientist: tall, slender, with sharply cut features expressing
determination, wholly devoted to his work. He is reserved and calm as a typical Englishman;
however, his Bohemian life and his eccentricities, such as using drugs, playing the violin, and his
46

love for the bizarre, makes him a very singular personality. His unmistakable brain gives him an
air of unreal perfection, and Holmes often results more a machine than a human being. Poirot, on
the other hand, resembles Holmess caricature: he is small, round, with an egg-shaped head and
thick moustache, neatly dressed up, and speaking with a heavy French accent. He is a Belgian,
ignorant of British manners, and his appearance and behaviour make him substantially ridiculous.
His eccentricities, such as his love for tidiness and symmetry, contribute to the picture of a funny
little man. However, he results much more human-like in comparison with Holmes.
Both Holmes and Poirot have a brilliant intelligence, with Holmes, moreover, appended
with huge scientific knowledge. Both of them use their talents for close observation and logical
deduction as the base of their investigating methods, Holmes often relying on his encyclopaedic
knowledge, Poirot on his knowledge of human psychology. While Holmes is never in error,
Poirots deductions sometimes result in failure, which gives him certain humanity in contrast to
Holmess considerable flatness.
Both Holmes and Poirot have their faithful companions, Dr Watson and Captain Hastings,
who function as narrators of their stories, and at the same time as intensifiers of Holmess and
Poirots extraordinary intelligence. Watson and Hastings also form a substantial source of humour
in the stories as they are often ridiculed by their friends. However, the relationship between them is
always warm and strong, and both Watson and Hastings contribute considerably to the popularity
of the Great Detectives.
Doyles Sherlock Holmes and Christies Hercule Poirot belong to the worlds most
famous fictional detectives. While Holmes appeared at the very beginning of the history of the
detective genre and served thus as a model for the whole generation of fictional detectives, Poirot
belongs to his prime descendants and is based upon the already well-established stereotype of the
Great Detective figure. However, he offers a combination of both conservatism and modernity, and
his foreign origin, ridiculous appearance, and conceited manners contribute to a much more

47

transparent vision of the culture of domineering Anglophiles, inclined to underestimating other

nations capabilities and efforts.

48

5. Works cited

5. 1. Primary Sources

Christie, Agatha. Curtain. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1975. (C)
---. Mrs. Gintys Dead. London: Fontana Books, 1959.
---. The ABC Murders. London: Pan Books, 1958.
---. The Adventure of the Cheap Flat. Poirot Investigates. London: Pan Books, 1955. 48-64.
(ACF)
---. The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb. Poirot Investigates. London: Pan Books, 1955. 92109. (AET)
---. The Adventure of the Italian Nobleman. Poirot Investigates. London: Pan Books, 1955. 169181. (AIN)
---. The Adventure of the Western Star. Poirot Investigates. London: Pan Books, 1955. 7-31.
(AWS)
---. The Case of the Missing Will. Poirot Investigates. London: Pan Books, 1955. 182-192.
(CMW)
---. The Mysterious Affair at Styles. London: Pan Books, 1954. (MAS)
---. The Mystery of Hunters Lodge. Poirot Investigates. London: Pan Books, 1955. 65-79.
(MHL)
---. The Tragedy at Marsdon Manor. Poirot Investigates. London: Pan Books, 1955. 32-47.
(TMM)
Doyle, Arthur Conan. A Scandal in Bohemia. Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York:
Doubleday & Company, 1930. 161-175. (SB)
---. A Study in Scarlet. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1930.
15-88. (SS)
49

---. The Adventure of the Engineers Tumb. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York:
Doubleday & Company, 1930. 273-286. (AET)
---. The Final Problem. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday & Company,
1930. 469-482. (FP)
---. The Five Orange Pips. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday & Company,
1930. 217-228. (FOP)
---. The Hound of the Baskerville. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday &
Company, 1930. 669-738.
---. The Musgrave Ritual. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday & Company,
1930. 386-397. (MR)
---. The Naval Treaty. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday & Company,
1930. 447-468. (NT)
---. The Red-Headed League. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday &
Company, 1930. 176-189. (RHL)

5. 2. Secondary Sources

Agatha Christie. Wikipedia. 22 Nov. 2005. Wikipedia Foundation. 28 Nov. 2005

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_christie>.
Alewyn, Richard. The Origin of the Detective Novel. Most and Stowe 62-78.
Arthur Conan Doyle. Wikipedia. 26 Nov. 2005. Wikipedia Foundation. 28 Nov. 2005
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle>.
Chesterton, G. K. A Defence of Detective Stories. Project Gutenberg. 3 May 2004. Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. 20 Nov. 2005 <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12245/
12245-h/12245-h.htm#A_DEFENCE_OF_DETECTIVE_STORIES>.
Christie, Agatha. An Autobiography. London: HarperCollins, 1977.

50

Cignek, Jan. Umn detektivky. Praha: Sttn nakladatelstv dtsk knihy, 1962.
apek, Karel. Holmesida ili o detektivkch. Kaz detektivky literrn vkus? Ed. John Rhode.
Praha: YMCA, 1940. 7-34.
Danielsson, Karin Molander. The Dynamic Detective. Easbruck: Akademitryck, 2002.
Grym, Pavel. Sherlock Holmes a ti druz. Praha: Vyehrad, 1988.
Hercule Poirot. Wikipedia. 18 Nov. 2005. Wikipedia Foundation. 28 Nov. 2005
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot>.
Holquist, Michael. Whodunit and Other Questions: Metaphysical Detective Stories in Postwar
Fiction. Most and Stowe 150-174.
Knight, Stephen. ...some men come up the Detective appears. Most and Stowe 266-298.
Most, Glenn W., and William W. Stowe, ed. The Poetics of Murder. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1983.
Ross,

David.

Sir

Arthur

Conan

Doyle.

Britain

Express.

14

Nov.

2005

<http://www.britainexpress.com/History/bio/doyle.htm>.
Sherlock Holmes. Wikipedia. 24 Nov 2005. Wikipedia Foundation. 28 Nov. 2005
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes>.
Symons, Julian. Bloody Murder. London: Penguin Books, 1974.
---. The Great Detectives. London : Orbis, 1981.
Wright, Willard Hungtington. The Great Detective Stories. Webfic. 1998. Kriminallittercre
Nyheder. 14 Nov. 2005 <http://www.webfic.dk/kriminyt/art/greatdet.ht>.

51